In assessing disproportionate assets, a public servant's family's income and expenditures can be included for determining asset accumulation.

ORDER :

A. Badharudeen, J.

Order dated 07.10.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.30 of 2022 in C.C.No.17 of 2021 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram, is under challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition moved by the sole accused therein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/sole accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the VACB in detail. Perused the records and the order impugned.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused, who worked as an Office Attendant in the Transport Commissionerate, in the Regional Transport Offices at Thiruvananthapuram and Palakkad between 01.04.2009 and 13.05.2015, being a public servant, amassed wealth by corrupt and illegal means disproportionate to his known sources of income, calculated at 39.30%. As per the prosecution allegation, the asset he had as of now would come to Rs.38,49,854.11 and his savings was 20,55,791/-. Therefore, he had assets to the tune of Rs.17,94,062.19 (i.e, 39.30%). On this premise, the prosecution alleges that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act, 1988’ for short), by the accused/revision petitioner.

4. On getting summons from the Special Court, the accused appeared and filed Crl.M.P.No.30/2022 seeking discharge as provided under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. While seeking discharge before the Special Court, the main contention raised by the accused is that the income of his wife and father-in-law, who had been residing with him, was also taken into consideration to assess his income so as to show that he had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. That apart, the methodology adopted by the vigilance in calculating the income and assets of a public servant also was challenged while canvassing discharge. Finally the Special Court found that, on verification of the statements of the witnesses, the table of statements, the exhibits annexed to the final report and statements A to F, prima facie, the allegation of the prosecution is established and, therefore, the discharge plea could not succeed.

5. When the learned Senior Counsel, who challenged the order of the Special Court, on the date of admission as on 30.10.2025, pointed out that the income to the tune of Rs.38,54,526.76 covered by item Nos.2,4,5,13 and 15 in the basic statement D are the assets specifically held by the wife and father in law of the accused and the prosecution had no case that those assets were generated by using the fund of the accused. When the matter was heard on 27.11.2025, the learned Senior Counsel conceded that when the wife and father in law resided along with the accused, their income also can be considered. But the Special Court not adverted to the said facts while dismissing the discharge petition moved by the accused. Therefore, the order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back for fresh consideration by the Special Court.

6. Per contra it is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that in this case the wife of the accused is a house wife and she did not have any income independently other than that of the husband. It is also pointed out that since the father in law had some income, the same was taken into consideration along with the expenses of the father in law and the wife of the accused while finding that the accused had amassed disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.17,94,062.19. It is also submitted that as per paragraph 130 of the Vigilance Manual, the term `public servant’ should be taken to include his family and any others who are dependent on him and in the same line, the financial de